Thanks gabby!
On Aug 29, 1:50 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > You know what, Orn, your truth couldn't be further away. In order to help > you understand what you are doing you will from now on only be getting > answers. No more criticism, no more issues, but answers. > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:58 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > gabby, the truth is I thought you were asking me direct questions. > > Other times when I didn't respond thinking them to be rhetorical, you > > criticised me too. > > > I won’t feign being stupid nor not-stupid. That isn’t the immediate > > issue. > > > Perhaps to help communication you could be more clear with what you > > say/ask. > > > On Aug 29, 6:43 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Orn, I resist the temptation to post a link to a definition of rhetorical > > > question, because I assume you don't need me to tell you what this is. It > > > would help communication if you you would stop pretending to be stupid. > > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Gabby, one can take the stance that anything is ‘conceivable’, even > > > > that one can know for sure what another person’s meanings are > > > > including the projection of masterplans. Or, that it is necessary to > > > > point out that people have differing views because one is sure that > > > > others are not so aware. > > > > > Obviously someone has ‘conceived’ these beliefs and couched them as > > > > questions for others to answer. > > > > > On Aug 29, 3:07 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hm. I see. Would it somehow be conceivable to you that your > > masterplan is > > > > > what it is, namely your masterplan? Which then would allow for the > > option > > > > of > > > > > you not understanding paradox'es meaning/intention? But I agree with > > you > > > > > that he could have written that his response was a continuation of > > your > > > > > exchange of worldviews in order to make it absolutely clear that he > > is > > > > not > > > > > you. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > "...Why would you not accept this > > > > > > semantics? " - gabby > > > > > > > Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his > > > > > > interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the > > case, > > > > > > he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term > > > > > > 'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in > > apparently > > > > > > different ways. > > > > > > > On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in > > its > > > > > > > formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a > > > > > > complexity > > > > > > > reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat > > constructedness. > > > > The > > > > > > > point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would > > > > then > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not > > > > accept > > > > > > this > > > > > > > semantics? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > “Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > > > > > thought... “ – paradox > > > > > > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said “Relativism and > > > > > > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of > > > > > > > > disillusionment.” as a call for blindness, nothing could be > > further > > > > > > > > from the truth. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term > > > > ‘disillusionment’. > > > > > > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is > > fairly > > > > high > > > > > > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very > > close > > > > to > > > > > > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term > > > > itself > > > > > > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. > > And, > > > > in > > > > > > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people > > > > apprehend > > > > > > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite > > painful > > > > – > > > > > > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such > > pain > > > > > > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is > > > > ‘waking > > > > > > > > up’ is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it > > is > > > > > > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time. > > > > > > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to > > begin > > > > to > > > > > > > > open one’s eyes metaphorically. > > > > > > > > > As an aside, Sartre’s novel, “Nausea”, is an example of the > > psyche > > > > > > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most > > are > > > > > > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. > > > > Thus > > > > > > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the > > awareness > > > > of > > > > > > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't > > have > > > > > > > > > thought... > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the > > depths of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > well of disillusionment. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that > > bourgeois > > > > > > morality > > > > > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover > > debt. > > > > I > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. > > To > > > > > > abandon > > > > > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism > > and > > > > 'low > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover > > morality > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be > > > > generally > > > > > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in > > > > considering > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and > > > > wonder > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we > > have > > > > any > > > > > > > > 'right' > > > > > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman > > > > concerned > > > > > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it > > - > > > > that > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt > > to > > > > 'free > > > > > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially > > approved > > > > > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to > > 'moralising') > > > > - > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche > > and on > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever > > be an > > > > > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - > > the > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis > > could > > > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us > > > > with > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of > > govern-mentality or > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe > > 'subjective' we > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into > > meaningful > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good > > > > example > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can > > hold > > > > this > > > > > > > > view > > > > > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to > > repay. > > > > Yet > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book > > that > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on > > > > debt - > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom > > from > > > > debt' > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin > > - in > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our > > definition > > > > of > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should > > not > > > > be. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and > > ethical > > > > about > > > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in > > understanding > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - > > at > > > > least > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and > > ethics, > > > > we > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a > > better > > > > > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind > > of > > > > > > 'return' - > > > > > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking > > things > > > > > > through - > > > > > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much > > > > 'morality' > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here > > at > > > > all. > > ... > > read more »
